Not merely surprised as you would be, for instance, if you discovered that bananas that regularly sell for 79 cents a pound had suddenly jumped to $1.29.

Not merely dismayed, as you could be, to learn that Savo Brothers intends to squeeze 250 housing units on Mount Manresa’s magnificent 15 acres. Not merely alarmed, as you should be, at news that the prescription drug epidemic is much worse on Staten Island than it is in the rest of the city.

No. I’m talking shocked, with all the connotations of that extreme emotion.

On Thursday, in a case with a significant Staten Island component, five judges of the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, First Department, declared themselves really and truly shocked that two teachers at James Madison High School in Brooklyn had been fired for having a sexual encounter in a classroom while students were performing in the auditorium.

Shock was pivotal to the court’s ruling, you see, because the judiciary lacks the power to overturn discipline imposed in compulsory arbitration unless it shocks the conscience of the court.The teachers, Cindy Mauro and Alini Brito, taught French and Spanish, respectively, at James Madison.

On Nov. 20, 2009, after having dinner with colleagues, they returned to the school to watch students perform in a musical competition in the first floor auditorium.

During the show, however, multiple witnesses observed the women engaging in sexual conduct in an empty, third-floor classroom.

As the Department of Education correctly noted, this “caused widespread negative publicity, ridicule and notoriety to the school” when it was sensationally reported in New York area newspapers and other media outlets.

Both women were terminated by the Department of Education upon an arbitrator’s finding that they had engaged in serious misconduct.

In last week’s decision, the mid-level appellate court conceded that they had been accorded “a full and fair hearing” and that their misconduct had been established by “adequate evidence.”

But as for their being fired, well that, the court declared, is “shocking to the conscience.”

Hence the court overturned that portion of the arbitrators’ decision and sent the matter back to the Department of Education for the imposition of a lesser penalty.

If these two women were intent on having a sexual encounter, they could have done so someplace else.

That they chose, instead, a classroom in the very school where they teach, on a celebratory night for students, no less, was brazenly irresponsible. When they were discovered — and that apparently wasn’t very difficult — they brought shame, humiliation, and derision on their school.

So how did the judges explain their being “shocked” at a result that actually seems entirely appropriate? Well, they cited the fact that the teachers’ behavior wasn’t illegal, hadn’t been seen by any students, and had only taken place on this one occasion. They also noted that the two women had an unblemished disciplinary record.

But while these may be legitimate arguments against firing the teachers, they provide no rational basis for being “shocked” by the Department of Education’s decision to do so.

A STRAINED ANALOGY

Clearly the judges wanted to save the teachers’ jobs, but they needed more to do so, a fact that they, themselves, seemed to have recognized. So they purported to find it in the remarkably lenient treatment accorded Colleen McGraham, the former New Dorp High School teacher who had relentlessly pursued a romantic relationship with a 15-year-old male student through e-mails and instant messages, often after midnight.

The boy was so upset by her behavior that he severed all contact with her and reported his concerns to another teacher,

McGraham persisted nonetheless, pleading with him in an e-mail to talk with her, and adding, “You have meant too much to me for this to end in silence and tears.”

Although the city sought to fire McGraham, an arbitrator concluded that a mere 90-day suspension, without pay, and a reassignment to a new school was the appropriate punishment. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, affirmed that extremely lenient disposition.

In last week’s ruling, the Appellate Division cited the McGraham case, reasoning that if she didn’t lose her job for so shamelessly targeting a student, Mauro and Alini shouldn’t lose theirs for conduct that didn’t involve a student at all.

It was a bit of a shell shuffle, however, because the Court of Appeals never indicated that it agreed with McGraham’s punishment; Rather, it gave due deference to the arbitrator’s ruling.

And that’s precisely what the Appellate Division should have done last week, instead of overturning firings that were justifiable under a reasonable view of the circumstances.

So Mauro and Brito get to keep their jobs through the judges’ feigned shock, because McGraham got to keep hers through an arbitrator’s unwarranted leniency. None of that changes the fact that these women have contributed significantly to increasing concerns about some of the people teaching in the city’s public schools.

Sure, the great majority of teachers are highly principled, dedicated professionals. But, then again, children are entitled to no less, in every classroom, every day.

[Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is column@danielleddylaw.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/LegalHotShots.]